JUDGMENT : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. Respondent No.2 is the Public Works Department, Punjab, respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 are the Chief Engineer, Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer of respondent No.2; respondent Nos.6 and 7 are the Executive Engineers and the Regional Officer of the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highway; respondent No. 8 is the private respondent in whose favour the work has been granted. 2. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the official respondents considering his bid to be non-responsive and awarding the work to respondent No. 8. 3. The 2nd respondent issued a “Request for Proposal” (RFP) for the following work:- “widening to 2-lane with paved shoulder and strengthening in Km 200.950 to 221.850 & Km. 227.750 to 234.620 of NH-203 Barnala-Mansa-Sardulgarh-Sirsa road in the State of Punjab.” 4. The notice inviting tenders was issued on 17.12.2015. This petition requires interpretation of the following clauses of the N.I.T.:- 2.2.2.2 Technical Capacity (i) For demonstrating technical capacity and experience (the “Technical Capacity”), the Bidder shall, over the past (five) financial years preceding the Bid Due Date, have received payments for construction of Eligible Project(s) or has undertaken construction works by itself in a PPP project such that the sum total thereof is more than Rs.138.15 Crores (Rs.One hundred thirty eight crores and fifteen lakhs only) (the “Threshold Technical Capacity”). 2.2.2.5 Categories and factors for evaluation of Technical Capacity: (i) Subject to the provisions of Clause 2.2.2 the following categories of experience would qualify as Technical Capacity and eligible experience (the "Eligible Experience") in relation to eligible projects as stipulated in Clauses 2.2.2.6 (i) & (ii) (the "Eligible Projects"). 2.2.2.5 Categories and factors for evaluation of Technical Capacity: (i) Subject to the provisions of Clause 2.2.2 the following categories of experience would qualify as Technical Capacity and eligible experience (the "Eligible Experience") in relation to eligible projects as stipulated in Clauses 2.2.2.6 (i) & (ii) (the "Eligible Projects"). In case the Bidder has experience across different categories, the experience for each category would be computed as per weight of following factors to arrive at its aggregated Eligible Experience: Category Project / Construction experience on Eligible Projects Factors 1 Project in highways sector that qualify under Clause 2.2.2.6 (i) 1 2 Project in core sector that qualify under Clause 2.2.2.6 (i) 0.50 3 Construction in highways sector that qualify under Clause 2.2.2.6 (ii) 1 4 Construction in core sector that qualify under Clause 2.2.2.6 (ii) 0.50 (ii) The Technical capacity in respect of an Eligible Project situated in a developed country which is a member of OECD shall be further multiplied by a factor of 0.5 (zero point five) and the product thereof shall be the Experience Score for such Eligible Project. (iii) For the purpose of this RFP: (a) In case of projects executed by applicant under category 3 and 4 as member of joint venture, the project cost should be restricted to the share of the applicant in the joint venture for determining eligibility as per provision under clause 2.2.2 (A ii). In case Statutory Auditor certifies that, the work of other member(s) is also executed by the applicant, then the total share executed by applicant can be considered for determining eligibility as per provision under clause 2.2.2 (A ii) (b) Maintenance works are not considered as eligible project for evaluation as per Instruction No.6 to Annex-IV. As such works with nomenclature like PR, OR, FDR, SR, site/micro grading, surface renewal, resurfacing work, Tarring, B.T. surface work, temporary restoration, urgent works, periodic maintenance, repair & rehabilitation, one time maintenance, permanent protection work of bank, external pre stressing, repair of central hinge, short term OMT contract of NHAI, any type of work related to boarder fencing, work of earthwork alone, construction of buildings/ hostels/ hospitals, etc, or not specified shall not be considered. (c) The works such as Improvement in Riding Quality work (IRQP/IRQ), riding quality shall be considered for threshold technical capacity [2.2.2(A i)] but not for single completed works ([2.2.2(A ii)] (d) Project in Highway sector shall constitute the following for the purpose of consideration under category 1 of 3 as applicable, if: i Widening / reconstruction/ up-gradation works on NH/ SH or on any category of road taken up under CRF, ISC/ EI, SARDP, LWE ii Widening / reconstruction/ up-gradation works on MDRs with loan assistance form multilateral agencies or on BOT basis, iii Widening / reconstruction/ up-gradation work of roads in Municipal corporation limits, construction of Bypasses, iv Construction of stand – alone bridges, ROBs, tunnels w.r.t roads. v Long term OMT works of NHAI/MORT&H. (e) The projects with the title of RIDF, PMGSY road, link road, city roads, rural road, sector/municipality road, Bridges for railway line, work of metro rails (bridges/tunnel), real estate projects which demonstrate road development/ construction bridges or culverts may be considered under category-4 (f) In case both the estimated cost of project and revised cost of project are provided, the revised cost of project shall be considered for evaluation. Real estate development shall not include residential flats unless they form part of a real estate complex or township which has been built by the Applicant.” 5. The State Level Technical Evaluation Committee considered the petitioner’s bid to be technically responsive. The technical bids of all the bidders were further examined by the Screening Committee of the Ministry. The Screening Committee noted that the petitioner mentioned in its technical bids two works which according to it did not fall within clause 2.2.2.5 (iii)(d). It noted that the two works mentioned by the petitioners are on Major District Roads (MDRs) and therefore, fall in the category (4) in clause 2.2.2.5. Accordingly, the Screening Committee computed the petitioner’s required bid capacity at Rs. 134.31 crores which was less than the capacity of 138.15 crores stipulated in clause 2.2.2.2. From the Screening Committee, the matter went to the Evaluation Committee which after a detailed consideration and analysis found the petitioner’s bid to be non-responsive. 6. The question that falls for consideration, therefore, is whether the works mentioned by the petitioner fall within clause 2.2.2.5 (iii)(d). The petitioner claims that it falls within clause 2.2.2.5 (iii)(d)(ii). 7. The work referred to by the petitioner is on Major District Roads. 6. The question that falls for consideration, therefore, is whether the works mentioned by the petitioner fall within clause 2.2.2.5 (iii)(d). The petitioner claims that it falls within clause 2.2.2.5 (iii)(d)(ii). 7. The work referred to by the petitioner is on Major District Roads. It was, however, not with the loan assistance from multilateral agencies. Moreover, in the form tendered by the petitioner it is not even stated to be on ‘BOT’ basis. 8. The petitioner obtained the loan from the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited (HUDCO). The question is whether HUDCO falls within the words ‘multilateral agencies”. The expression ‘multilateral agency’ is not defined. The respondents have relied upon a reference to multilateral institutions in a publication issued by the Government of India, Department of Economic Affairs. It refers to the organizations such as World Bank, namely, IBRD, IDA, IFC, MIGA, ICSID, ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and Global Environment Facility (GEF). Multilateral agencies appear to refer to not merely one lender but a group of international agencies such as the ones already mentioned. The website states that the Government of India accesses finance assistance from various multinational agencies which we have already named, namely, World Bank Group, ADB, IFAD & GEF. There is nothing to indicate that HUDCO is a multilateral agency. The petitioner has not even attempted to seek any opinion from HUDCO as to whether it considers itself a multilateral agency. 9. The petitioner relies upon the clause to contend that it fulfills the eligibility criteria. It was, therefore, for the petitioner to establish that its funding agent is a multilateral agency. The tender has been issued by the Public Works Department. It is, reasonable, therefore, to presume that what the PWD meant by the expression ‘Multilateral Agency’ is what the Government of India, Department of Economic Affairs, considers to be multilateral agencies. Further, the petitioner has not even mentioned in the form that he executed the work on BOT basis. 10. Mr. Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further contended that even assuming that the petitioner was entitled to a mark of only (0.5) and not a mark of (1), it still satisfies the bid criteria of 138.15 crores. This issue was never raised either before the Evaluation Committee or in the petition. It is essentially a question of fact. This issue was never raised either before the Evaluation Committee or in the petition. It is essentially a question of fact. The petitioner cannot now be permitted to raise the same. 11. The petition is accordingly dismissed.